Influence of irrigation levels and row spacings on yield and yield attributing characters of mungbean varieties (Vigna radiata L.) in middle Gujarat agro-climatic zone

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(2): 464-473

International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences
ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 8 Number 02 (2019)
Journal homepage:

Original Research Article

/>
Influence of Irrigation Levels and Row Spacings on Yield and Yield
Attributing Characters of Mungbean Varieties (Vigna radiata L.) in
Middle Gujarat Agro-climatic Zone
B.I. Karande*, H.R. Patel, D.D. Patil, S.B. Yadav and M.J. Vasani
Department of Agricultural Meteorology, B. A. College of Agriculture,
Anand Agricultural University, Anand, India
*Corresponding author

ABSTRACT
Keywords
Irrigation level,
Summer mungbean,
Row spacing, etc

Article Info
Accepted:
07 January 2019
Available Online:
10 February 2019

Field experiments were conducted for two consecutive years during summer season of
2015 and 2016 to study the effect of different irrigation regimes (I 1- 0.8 IW: CPE, I2- 0.6

IW: CPE and I3- 0.4 IW: CPE) and row spacing (S1- 45 cm and S2- 30 cm) on varieties
(V1- Meha and V2- GM 4) of mungbean crop. Results found that higher grain yield (1380
kg ha-1 and 1437 kg ha-1) was found in I1 followed by I2 and I3 in both the years of
experiments. Pooled results revealed increase in grain yield in irrigation level I 1 was to the
tune of 18.5 and 83.8 per cent higher over irrigation levels I 2 and I3, respectively. Cv.
Meha produced higher grain yield (1178 kg ha -1 and 1234 kg ha-1) while 30 cm spacing
found higher grain yield (1162 kg ha-1 and 1188 kg ha-1) during both the years of
experiment.

occupies more than 2.5 lac ha area with
average kharif productivity of about 500 to
600 kg ha-1.

Introduction
Mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) is an important
pulse crop and short duration grain legume
with wide adaptability, low input requirement
and have the ability to improve soil fertility
by fixing atmospheric nitrogen. Mungbean is
a native of India and Central Asia (Vavilov,
1926). In India, mungbean is grown on about
3.70 million hectares with annual production
of 1.57 million tons. India is the largest
producer of mungbean and account 54 per
cent of the world production and covers 65%
of the world acreage. In Gujarat, pulse crops
grown on 7.0 lac ha out of which mungbean

Moisture stress during crop growth plays
important role in productivity of mungbean.

During summer season mungbean is
cultivated under irrigated condition. Soil
moisture stress causes increase in leaf and
canopy temperature resulted in drying of
leaves during vegetative stage resulted in poor
and slow vegetative growth. While moisture
stress at the reproductive stage of cropping
season cause drying of leaves, flower abortion
and dropping which leads to forced maturity
464


Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(2): 464-473

with poor biomass and grain yield. If crops
are exposed to soil moisture stress reducing
grain yields more than 50%.The summer
mungbean productivity is 1000 to 1200 kg
ha-1. During summer season, productivity of
mungbean is low due to improper irrigation
management and injudicious use of available
water. It ranks second to drought resistance
after soybean (Ali et al., 2001). On an
average, it fixes atmospheric nitrogen @ 300
kg ha-1 annually (Sharar et al., 2001). The
nutritive value of mungbean lies in its high
and easily digestible protein and contains
approximately 25-28 per cent protein, 1.0 per
cent oil, 3.5-4.5 per centfibre, 4.5-5.5 per cent
ash and 62-65 per cent carbohydrates on dry

weight basis. New released varieties with
optimum water supply as per the water
requirement of variety and optimum plant
population can give productivity of 1400 to
1600 kg ha-1.

plants from each plot. Grain and biological
yields were recorded from individual plots
and expressed in kg ha-1.
Results and Discussion
Number of pods plant-1
The results presented in Table 1 indicated that
irrigation regimes exerted significant effect on
average number of pods plant-1. Irrigation
level I1 (0.8 IW: CPE ratio) recorded
significantly higher (20.10) average number
of pods plant-1 which was found to be at par
with irrigation levels I2 (0.6 IW: CPE ratio) in
2015, 2016 and pooled results. Significantly
the lowest (15.87) average number of pods
plant-1 was observed with irrigation level I3
(0.4 IW: CPE ratio). This might be due to
increase in number of irrigation at shorter
intervals and total consumptive use of water.
This situation avoided moisture stress and
thus, provided very favourable conditions for
moisture and nutrient availability. These
results are in accordance with results those of
Tank et al., (1992), Arya and Sharma (1994),
Trivedi et al., (1994), Vijayalakshmi and

Rajagopal (1995), Dabhi et al., (2000), Idnani
and Gautam (2008) and Patel et al., (2016).
An appraisal of data presented in Table 1
showed that the variety Meha (V1) recorded
significantly higher number of pods per plant
than variety GM-4 (V2) in 2016, 2017 and
pooled results. Present results are in
accordance with the results reported by
Chovatia et al., (1993) and Tekale et al.,
(2011) for different varieties of green gram
crop.

Materials and Methods
The experiment was laid out at Agronomy
Farm, B. A. College of Agriculture, Anand
Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat
during summer seasons of 2015 and 2016 in
split plot design with irrigation levels as main
plot (I1- 0.8 IW: CPE, I2- 0.6 IW: CPE and I30.4 IW: CPE), spacing (S1: 45 cm and S2: 30
cm) and variety (V1: Meha and V2: GM 4) as
sub plot treatments. The soil type of the
experimental site is sandy loam a true
representative
soil
of
the
region.
Recommended agronomic practices were
followed to raise the crop. The cumulative
pan evaporation values were calculated from

daily pan evaporation measured with the help
of USWB class ‘A’ open pan evaporimeter
installed at meteorological observatory, which
was in the proximity of the experimental plot.
The quantity of irrigation water applied in
surface flooding was measured by 7.5 cm
head Parshall flume. Yield and yield attributes
observations were taken from 10 selected

The differences due to row spacing were
observed in number of pods per plant. The
treatment 45 cm row spacing (S1) recorded
significantly higher pods per plant (19.70)
compared to 30 cm row spacing in both the
years as well as in pooled analysis. The
results had good agreement with the results of
465


Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(2): 464-473

Shukla and Dixit (1996) in green gram crop.
Interaction effect between irrigation regimes,
variety and row spacing on average number of
pods plant-1 recorded at harvest of mungbean
was found to be non-significant in both the
years as well as pooled results (Table 1).

irrigation levels I2 (0.6 IW: CPE ratio) in year
2016. The lowest (31.25 g) test weight of

mungbean was obtained in irrigation level I3
(0.4 IW: CPE ratio) in year 2015, 2016 and
pooled results. This might be due to the
severe water stress committed when the IW:
CPE ratio become narrow. Water deficit
during pod filling stage might have
contributed towards the shrivelled seed.
Further, continuous pod formation and
excessive growth might have reduced the size
of seed.

Seed weight plant-1
The results revealed that irrigation regimes
had significant effect on average seed weight
plant-1. Irrigation level I1 (0.8 IW: CPE ratio)
recorded significantly the highest (5.31 g
plant-1) average seed weight over irrigation
levels I2 (0.6 IW: CPE ratio) and I3 (0.4 IW:
CPE ratio) in both years as well as in pooled
results. Significantly the lowest (2.96)
average seed weight plant-1 was observed
with irrigation level I3 (0.4 IW: CPE ratio) in
year 2015, 2016 and pooled results, while the
variety Meha (V1) recorded significantly
higher seed weight per plant than variety GM4 (V2) in 2015, 2016 and pooled results. The
differences due to row spacing were observed
in seed weight per plant. The treatment 45 cm
row spacing (S1) recorded significantly higher
seed weight per plant (4.89) compared to 30
cm row spacing in both the years as well as in

pooled analysis.

The results are in good conformity with those
by Prasad and Yadav (1990), Arvadiya (1992)
Dabhi et al., (2000) and Patel et al.,
(2016).The data presented in Table 1
indicated that the variety GM-4 (V2) recorded
significantly higher test weight than variety
Meha (V1) in year 2015, 2016 and pooled
analysis. This was due to GM-4 was
genetically bold seeded variety and size was
larger than Meha variety. The differences due
to row spacing were observed in test weight.
The treatment 45 cm row spacing (S1)
recorded significantly higher test weight as
compared to 30 cm row spacing (S2) in both
the years as well as in pooled analysis. This
might be due to 45 cm row spacing caused
lower plant population per unit area provided
more moisture and nutrients to less number of
grains resulted in more test weight compared
to 30 cm row spacing. Similar results were
reported by Rasul et al., (2012).

Interaction effect between irrigation regimes,
variety and row spacing on average seed
weight per plant recorded at harvest of
mungbean was found to be non-significant in
both the years as well as pooled results (Table
1).

Interaction effect as presented in Table 2
revealed that the interaction between
irrigation regimes and variety for test weight
recorded at harvest of mungbean was found to
be significant in year 2015 as well as pooled
results. However, interactions were found
non-significant during year 2016. The
treatment combination I1V2 produced
significantly the highest test weight whereas
the lowest was registered under treatment
I3V1 in year 2015 as well as poled results.

Test weight
Data given in Table 1 revealed that the
differences in test weight of mungbean were
significantly affected due to irrigation
regimes. Irrigation level I1 (0.8 IW: CPE
ratio) recorded significantly the highest
(38.05 g) test weight of mungbean, in pooled
analysis. Which was remained at par with
466


Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(2): 464-473

a gap if ever present would reduce the
availability of nutrients to the roots probably
due to lesser contact between roots and water
particle causing drastic reduction in dry

matter production and uptake of nutrients.
This might be the major reason for lower
yield of crop with high moisture stress. The
results are in close agreement with those
reported by Vasimalai and Subramanian
(1980), Prasad et al., (1990), Arvadiya
(1992), Tank et al., (1992), Trivedi et al.,
(1994), Shukla and Dixit (1996), Dabhi et al.,
(2000), Bhadoria and Bhadoria (2002), Mitra
and Bhattacharya (2005), Kumbhar et al.,
(2005), Idnani and Gautam (2008), Rasul et
al., (2012), Mukesh Kumar (2016), Patel et
al., (2016) and Bhardwaj and Hamama
(2016).

Seed yield
Data pertaining to seed yield in kg ha-1 as
influenced by the different irrigation regimes,
varieties and row spacing are presented in
Table 3.
An appraisal of data in the table indicated that
the grain yields were significantly affected by
different irrigation regimes during 2015 and
2016 as well as in the pooled results. The
treatment I1 (0.8 IW: CPE ratio) was
statistically superior (1408 kg ha-1) over I2
and I3 treatments in both years and pooled
results. Treatment I2 (0.6 IW: CPE ratio)
recorded significantly higher grain yield over
I3 (0.6 IW: CPE ratio) in both years and

pooled results. The increase in seed yield in
irrigation level I1 (0.8 IW: CPE ratio) was to
the tune of 18.5 and 83.8 per cent higher over
irrigation levels I2 (0.6 IW: CPE ratio) and I3
(0.4 IW: CPE ratio), respectively. The
increase in seed yield with irrigation level
I1(0.8 IW: CPE ratio) might be due to increase
in growth and yield attributes and also
increase in irrigation frequency and total
amount of water on account of increased
ratio. Thus, there was progressive increase in
seed yield due to favourable moisture
condition and better availability of soil
moisture at higher frequency of irrigation
throughout the growth period which
remarkably stimulated the yield attributing
characters such as number of pods plant-1,
number of seeds pod-1 and test weight.
Another reason may be due to adequate
supply of moisture favorably improved
nutrient uptake and translocation which
ultimately linked
with
growth
and
development. Beneficial effects of these
parameters resulted in higher seed yield. The
lowest seed yield (766 kg ha-1) with irrigation
level I3 (0.4 IW: CPE ratio) might be due to
unsaturated soil moisture environment, a

vapour gap would formed around the roots by
their turgor pressure under water stress. Such

The differences in the yield were also
observed in the different varieties in both the
years under study as well as in pooled results.
The results showed that variety Meha (V1)
produced significantly higher grain yield
(1206 kg ha-1) over variety GM-4 in both the
years as well as in pooled data. The per cent
increase in seed yield by Meha was 14.64 per
cent higher over GM-4 variety. The reason for
higher grain yield in Meha variety might be
due to the attribution of their resistance to
yellow vain mosaic disease and ability to
escape water stressed condition during the
reproductive stage and adopted slow early
growth and later vigorous growth resulted in
high seed yield. This is due to cumulative
effect of improvement in growth and yield
attributes such as number of pods per plant
(Table 1), number of seeds per pod (Table 3)
and seed weight per plant (Table 3). These
findings in the present investigation are in
accordance with the findings of Faroda et al.,
(1983), Chovatia et al., (1993) and Tekale et
al., (2009) for the greengram. The results
presented in Table 2 indicated significant
variations on seed yield by different spacing.
Treatment 30 cm row spacing (S2) produced

467


Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(2): 464-473

significantly higher seed yield (1175 kg ha-1)
over 45 cm row to row spacing (S1) in both
the years and pooled results. This might be
due to higher leaf area produced under 30 cm
spacing then 45 cm spacing in both the years.
The consequence of higher vegetative
biomass production and thereafter their
partitioning in the seed yield production. The
findings of the present investigation are
similar to those reported by Rasul et al.,
(2012). These results are in close agreement
with the findings of Singh and Yadav (1994)
and Mitra and Bhattacharya (2005).

soil moisture and nutrients which have
contributed in increasing leaf area and
biomass which ultimately resulted in
accumulation more biomass yield under I1
and I2 treatments. This might be due to
adequate moisture supply throughout the
entire growth period which resulted in to
better growth and development. The lowest
(1721 kg ha-1) straw yield was recorded with
irrigation level I3 (0.4 IW: CPE ratio). A
remarkable reduction in straw yield with

limited water supply was explained on the
basis of internal water status in relation to
different physiological processes taking place
in the plant. The results are conformity with
those reported by Prasad and Yadav (1990),
Tank et al., (1992), Dabhi et al., (2000),
Kumbhar et al., (2005), Idnani and Gautam
(2008), Patel et al., (2016) and Mukesh et al.,
(2016). Water deficit affects every aspect of
plant life and inhibits growth, development
and productivity. The retardation of plant
growth under water stress is attributed to
reduced accumulation of dry biomass due to
inhibition of physiological processes (Singh
and Yadav, 2000).

The interaction effects revealed that I X S
interaction effect was found significant in
year 2016 and pooled results. The treatment
combination I1S2 produced significantly the
highest seed yield whereas the lowest was
registered under treatment combinations of
I3S2.
Straw yield
Data pertaining to straw yield in kg ha-1 as
influenced by the different irrigation regimes,
varieties and row spacing are presented in
Table 3 The significant differences in the
biomass yields were observed in the different
irrigation regimes, varieties and row spacings

in both the 2015 and 2016 years as well as in
pooled results.

The differences in the straw yield were
observed in the different varieties in both the
years as well as in pooled results. The results
showed that variety Meha (V1) produced
significantly higher straw yield (2243 kg ha-1)
over variety GM-4 (V2) in both the years as
well as in pooled data. The per cent increase
in straw yield by Meha was 7 per cent over
the GM-4 variety in pooled results. The
reason for higher grain yield in Meha variety
might be due to the attribution of their
resistance to yellow vain mosaic disease and
ability to sustain water stressed condition.
Meha showed slow early growth and later
vigorous growth resulted in high biomass
accumulation. These results are in close
agreement with the findings of Chovatia et
al., (1993) and Dhanga (2006) for mungbean
crop. The significantly higher straw yield

The data revealed that the treatment I1 (0.8
IW: CPE ratio) was found statistically
superior (2468 kg ha-1) over I2 (0.6 IW: CPE
ratio) and I3 (0.4 IW: CPE ratio) treatments in
year 2015 and pooled results. Treatment I2
(0.6 IW: CPE ratio) recorded significantly
higher straw yield over I3 (0.4 IW: CPE ratio)

treatment in year 2015, 2016 and pooled
results. In year 2016 treatment I1 (0.8 IW:
CPE ratio) and I2 (0.6 IW: CPE ratio) were at
par and both were significantly superior over
treatment I3 (0.4 IW: CPE ratio). The reason
might be due to the optimum utilization of
468


Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(2): 464-473

(2316 kg ha-1) was recorded under 30 cm
spacing (S2) over 45 cm (S1) row to row
spacing in both years as well as in pooled
results. This may be due to higher leaf area
produced under 30 cm spacing then 45 cm
spacing in the both years. The higher plant
population resulted in more biomass
accumulation. The research of the present
investigation is similar to those reported by
Rasul et al., (2012). These results are in close

agreement with the findings of Mansoor et al.,
(2010).
The interaction effects as presented in Table 4
revealed that interaction effects were found
non significant in 2015, 2016 and pooled
results. These results are in close agreement
with the findings of Chovatia et al., (1993) for
green gram crop.

Table.1 Influence of irrigation levels and spacing on yield attributes of mungbean
Treatment
I1 (0.8 IW:CPE)
I2 (0.6 IW:CPE)
I3 (0.4 IW:CPE)
S.Em.±
CD at 5%
CV %
V1 (Meha)
V2 (GM – 4)
S.Em.±
CD at 5%
S1 (45 cm)
S2 (30 cm)
S.Em.±
CD at 5%
CV %
Interaction table

Pods plant-1
Seed weight plant-1 (g)
2015 2016 Pooled 2015 2016 Pooled
20.1 20.2
20.1
4.91 5.71
5.31
18.1 20.2
19.3
4.30 4.67

4.48
15.2 16.5
15.9
2.94 2.99
2.96
0.64 0.45
0.38
0.10 0.15
0.09
2.50 1.75
1.26
0.38 0.60
0.29
12.39 8.10 10.33 8.23 11.83
10.38
18.7 20.1
19.3
4.31 4.59
4.44
16.8 18.1
17.4
3.79 4.33
4.06
10.39 0.26
0.23
0.08 0.08
0.05
1.15 0.76
0.66
0.24 0.25

0.16
18.9 20.4
19.7
4.66 5.14
4.89
16.5 17.7
17.1
3.44 3.78
3.61
0.39 0.26
0.23
0.08 0.08
0.05
1.15 0.76
0.66
0.24 0.25
0.16
9.24 5.60
7.55
8.31 8.01
8.15
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS

Test weight (g)
2015 2016 Pooled

37.25 38.84
38.04
35.72 37.01
36.36
32.15 30.36
31.25
0.37
0.51
0.44
1.47
2.00
1.45
3.70
4.97
4.39
32.13 30.20
31.16
37.96 40.61
39.28
0.29
0.29
0.58
0.86
0.86
1.83
36.42 36.57
36.49
33.66 34.24
33.95
0.29

0.29
0.50
0.86
0.86
1.43
3.48
3.47
3.48
IxV
NS
IxV

Table.2 Interaction effects on test weight between irrigation levels and variety (I x V) of
Mungbean
Treatment

Test weight
2015

I1 (0.8 IW:CPE)
I2 (0.6 IW:CPE)
I3 (0.4 IW:CPE)
S.Em.±
CD at 5%

V1
(Meha)
34.19
31.73
30.45

Pooled
V2
(GM – 4)
40.31
39.70
33.85

0.41
1.21

V1
(Meha)
34.06
31.70
27.72

V2
(GM – 4)
42.03
41.02
34.79
0.501
1.43

469


Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(2): 464-473

Table.3 Influence of irrigation levels and spacing on yield of mungbean
Treatment
I1 (0.8 IW:CPE)
I2 (0.6 IW:CPE)
I3 (0.4 IW:CPE)
S.Em.±
CD at 5%
CV %
V1 (Meha)
V2 (GM – 4)
S.Em.±
CD at 5%
S1 (45 cm)
S2 (30 cm)
S.Em.±
CD at 5%
CV %
Interaction table

Seed yield (kg ha-1)
2015
2016
Pooled
1380
1437
1408
1128
1247
1188
758

764
761
25.5
31.1
20.1
100.1 122.3
62.4
8.4
9.3
8.9
1178
1234
1206
1038
1065
1052
20.3
17.7
13.4
60.4
52.6
38.6
1054
1111
1082
1162
1188
1175
20.3
17.7

13.4
60.4
52.6
38.6
8.1
6.5
7.3
IxS IxS
IxS

Straw yield (kg ha-1)
2015
2016
Pooled
2325
2610
2468
2118
2504
2311
1565
1876
1721
39.8
61.8
37.7
156.3 192.6
120.0
8.3
10.8

9.9
2058
2428
2243
1914
2299
2106
29.7
28.2
20.6
88.5
84.5
59.1
1924
2341
2122
2146
2486
2316
29.7
28.2
20.6
88.5
84.5
59.1
7.63
6.13
6.81
NS
NS

NS

Harvest index (%)
2015 2016
Pooled
37.2
35.5
36.3
34.7
33.2
33.9
33.0
29.8
31.4
0.49
0.48
0.63
1.93
1.88
2.07
4.39
4.56
4.47
35.3
33.4
34.3
33.9
31.0
32.4
0.44

0.44
0.31
1.32
1.32
0.90
35.4
32.8
34.1
33.7
31.6
32.7
0.44
0.44
0.31
1.32
NS
0.90
4.84
5.16
5.00
IxS
IxS IxS

Table.4 Interaction effects on seed yield between irrigation levels and row spacing
(I x S) of mungbean
Seed yield (kg ha-1)

Treatment
2016

I1 (0.8 IW:CPE)
I2 (0.6 IW:CPE)
I3 (0.4 IW:CPE)
S.Em.±
CD at 5%

S1
(45 cm)
1346
1206
781

2016
S1
(45 cm)
1527
1288
748

S1
(45 cm)
1335
1127
770

30.6
91.1

S1
(45 cm)

1482
1249
761
23.3
67.0

Table.5 Interaction effects on harvest index irrigation levels and row spacing (I x S) of
Mungbean
Treatment

Harvest index (%)
2015

I1 (0.8 IW:CPE)
I2 (0.6 IW:CPE)
I3 (0.4 IW:CPE)
S.Em.±
CD at 5%

S1
(45 cm)
36.5
34.6
35.0

2015
S1
(45 cm)
35.4
34.8

31.1

0.57
1.70

S1
(45 cm)
36.1
33.7
32.6

S1
(45 cm)
35.9
34.2
29.9
0.54
1.55

470


Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(2): 464-473

The interaction effects as presented in Table 5
revealed that I X S interaction effect was
found significant in year 2015 and pooled
results. The treatment combination I1S1
produced the highest harvest index while
lowest recorded in I3S2 it was at par with I1S2

treatment in 2015 and pooled results. The
lowest was registered under treatment
combinations of I3S2.

Harvest index
The treatment I1 (0.8 IW: CPE ratio) was
significantly superior over I2 (0.6 IW: CPE
ratio) and I3 (0.4 IW: CPE ratio) treatments in
year 2015, 2016 and pooled results.
Treatment I2 recorded significantly higher
harvest index in 2016 as well as in the pooled
results, however, in 2015 I2 and I3treatments
were found at par. The reason might be due to
the lowest grain yield and excessive
vegetative growth might have attributed
towards decrease in harvest index. These
findings are in agreement with Khade et al.,
1986, Hossain et al., 2005, Akhter et al.,
2007. Patel et al., (2016) also reported that
stress during pod filling phase reduced pod
initiation and pod growth rate and thereby
reduced the harvest index (Table 3).

The present study concluded that irrigation at
0.8 IW: CPE ratio for mungbean exhibited
significantly higher yield for both variety due
to optimal soil moisture for various plant
process. Between varieties, variety Maha
produced significantly higher grain yield over
variety GM-4. Between two row spacing, row

spacing 30 cm exhibited higher seed yield due
to higher leaf area production and biomass
production resulted in higher yield the crop.

The results showed that variety Meha (V1)
recorded significantly superior harvest index
over GM-4 (V2) in both the years as well as in
pooled data (Table 2). The reason might be
due longer duration and higher growth rates
produced higher seed yield resulted in higher
harvest index by variety Meha.

References
Ali, A., Nadeem, M. A., Tayyab, M., Tahir,
M. and Sohail M. R. (2001).
Determining
suitable
planting
geometry for two mungbean (Vigna
radiate L.) cultivars under Faisalabad
conditions. Pakistan J. Biol. Sci. 4:
344-450.
Akhter, A., Hossain, K., Talukder, M. S. U.,
Sarkar, A. A. and Hye, M. A. (2007).
Effect of irrigation at various growth
stages on yield and water use of
mungbean. Bangladesh J. Agril. Sci.
34 (1): 49-54.
Arvadia, L. K. (1992). Response of summer
green gram (Vigna radiate L.

Wilczek)
to
irrigation,
weed
management and varying levels of
phosphorus. M.Sc. (Agri.) thesis
submitted to G. A. U., Sardar
Krushinagar. Bhadoria, R. B. S. and
Bhadoria, H. S. (2002). Effect of
irrigation on growth and yield of guar
and
moong
under
semi-arid

The results presented in Table 5 indicated
significant variations in harvest index by
different row spacing. Treatment with 45 cm
row spacing (S1) recorded significantly higher
harvest index over 30 cm (S2) row to row
spacing in both years and pooled results. This
might be due to under 30 cm row spacing
occupied higher plant population per unit area
produced more straw yield under 30 cm row
spacing then 45 cm row spacing in both the
years and pooled results. The consequence of
higher vegetative biomass production had
reduced harvest index. The finding of the
present investigation is similar to those
reported by Mitra and Bhattacharya (2005),

Mansoor et al., (2010) and Rasul et al.,
(2012).

471


Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(2): 464-473

conditions. Indian J. Soil. Cons., 30
(3): 46-48.
Bhardwaj, H. L. and Hamama, A. A. (2016).
Cultivar, Planting Date and Row
Spacing Effects on Mungbean
Performance in Virginia. Hort. Sci. 51
(6):67-73.
Chovatia, P. K., Ahlawat, R. P. S. and
Trivedi, S. J. (1993). Growth and yield
of summer greengram (Phaseolus
radiatus) as affected by different dates
of sowing, Rhizobium inoculation and
levels of phosphorous. Indian Journal
of Agronomy 38(3): 492-494.
Dabhi, B. M., Solanki, R. M. and Patel, J. C.
(2000). Response of summer green
gram to irrigation systems based on
IW/CPE ratio. Gujarat Agricultural
University
Research
Journal, 25
(2):20-23

Dhanga, A. B. (2006). Effect of dates of
sowing and spacing on growth, yield
attributes and yield of rabigreen gram
cv. CO-4 under middle Gujarat
conditions. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis
submitted to AAU, Anand. Hossain,
M. K., Talukder, M. S. U. and Sarkar,
A. A. (2005). Response of mungbean
to irrigation. J. of Agric. Engineering,
32(A): 113-119.
Idnani, L. K. and Gautam, H. K. (2008).
Water economization in summer
greengram
(Vigna
radiata) as
influenced by irrigation regimes and
land configurations. Indian J. Agric.
Sci., 78 (3): 214-219.
Mitra, S. and Bhattacharya, B. K. (2005).
Water use and productivity of green
gram (Vigna radiata var. radiata) as
influenced by spacings, mulching and
weed control under rainfed upland
situation of Tripura. Indian J. Agril.
Sci., 75 (1): 52-54.
Mukesh, K., PanwarG. S. and Sitaram, K.
(2016). Effect of Planting Date, Grain
Rate and Row Spacing on Nodulation

Efficiency of Bold Grained Spring

Mung bean [Vigna radiata (L.)
Wilczek] in Bundelkhand Region of
India. Legume Res. 39 (2): 293-296.
Patel, A. P., Patel, D. B., Chaudhary, M. M.,
Parmar P. N. and Patel, H. K. (2016).
Influence of Irrigation Scheduling
Based on IW: CPE Ratio and Levels
of Sulphur on Growth and Yieldof
Rabi Greengram [Vigna radiate (L.)
Mills]. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol.,
10(1): 20-25.
Prasad, T. and Yadav, D. S. (1990). Effect of
irrigation and plant density on yield
attributes and yield of green gram and
black gram. Indian J. Agron., 35 (1-2):
99-101.
Rasul, F., Cheema, F. A., Sattar, A., Saleem,
M. F. And Washid, M. A. 2012.
Evaluting the performance of three
mungbean varieties grown under
varying inter row spacing. J. of
Animal and pl. Sci. 22(4):1030-1035.
Shukla, S. K. and Dixit, R. S. (1996). Effect
of Rhizobium inoculation, plant
population and phosphorus on growth
and yield of summer green gram
(Phaseolus radiatus). Indian. J.
Agron. 41 (4): 611-615.
Singh, S. and Yadav, D. S. (1994). Response
of summer black gram (Phaseolus

mungo) to row spacing and seed rate.
Indian J. Agron. 39 (2): 314-315.
Sharar, M. S., Ayub, M., Nadeem, M. A. and
Noori, S. A. (2001). Effect of different
row spacings and graining densities on
the growth and yield of gram (Cicer
arietinum
L.).
Department
of
Agronomy, University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad, Pakistan. 38 (3-4): 51-53.
Tank, U. N., Damor, U. M., Patel, J. C. and
Chauhan, D. S. (1992). Response of
summer
greengram
(Phaseolus
radiata) to irrigation, nitrogen and
phosphorus. Indian J. Agron., 37(4):
833-835.
472


Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(2): 464-473

Tekale, C. D., Patel, D. D., Dongare R. S. and
Patil, S. D. (2011). Performance of
greengram (Vigna radiata L.) cultivars
under different dates of sowing.
Bioinfolet. 8 (4): 415–416.

Trivedi, S. J., Savalia, S. G., Ahlawat, R. P. S.
and Patel D. U. (1994). Effect of
irrigation schedules, depth of
ploughing and mulches on growth and
yield of summer green gram. Legume
Res., 17 (2): 93-95
Vasimalai, M. P. and Subramanian, S. (1980).
Response of green gram to

irrigation and phosphorus. Madras
Agric. J., 67 (8): 506-509.
Vavilov, N. I. (1926). Studies on the origin of
cultivated plants. Bull. Appl., 16: 139148.
Vijayalakshmi, R. and Rajagopal, A. (1995).
Effects of irrigation levels and
irrigation layouts on the yield
attributes and grain yield of
greengram. Madras Agric. J., 82 (4):
271-273.

How to cite this article:
Karande, B.I., H.R. Patel, D.D. Patil, S.B. Yadav and Vasani, M.J. 2019. Influence of Irrigation
Levels and Row Spacings on Yield and Yield Attributing Characters of Mungbean Varieties
(Vigna radiata L.) in Middle Gujarat Agro-climatic Zone. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 8(02):
464-473. doi: />
473